Faculty Meetings with Rudolf Steiner
GA 300c
15 June 1924, Stuttgart
Sixty-Ninth Meeting
Dr. Steiner: I had thought a meeting with the faculty would not be possible during this short visit. In light of the bad news I received today, though, I thought it was absolutely necessary to have this meeting and discuss the latest events. We cannot have a long meeting, since I have another meeting right after this one. However, we need to discuss the events of the past days. Before I go into the situation, I would like you to tell me about the events first.
A report is given about a theft by S.Z. and W.R.
Dr. Steiner: Aren’t both boys in the eleventh grade? Have you noticed anything unusual recently?
A teacher: Not in school. W.R. was very active in class, but S.Z. is less interested in learning.
Dr. Steiner: S.Z. lived with Mrs. A. and W.R. said they wanted to look at her furniture. That is undoubtedly when the boys took the key; now we have the question of whether Z. himself was truly active or whether R. is the real instigator, as appears to be the case. How long have the boys been in the school?
A teacher: S.Z. has been here for three years and W.R. for four.
Dr. Steiner: W.R. also stole some money. Which teachers worked with him?
A number of teachers report.
Dr. Steiner: These cases certainly give us a lot to think about. Now that I have heard what you said, there is even more to consider. These are symptoms of something that has recently become quite visible in other areas.
Through our Waldorf School methods, we bring children very far in one respect, which is in regard to intellect and spirit. Our students are very much farther along than other students of the same age. That is something no one can deny. From eighth or ninth grade on, the whole student body consists of very different young human beings than those in other schools. Now, of course, the human being is a whole, and bringing people forward in an intellectual/spiritual way requires that we also bring their souls just as far along morally. No one can deny that what we achieve in teaching in the Waldorf School is primarily limited to the period the children are actually in school, and that the relationship to the students primarily results from what happens during classroom hours. That is the relationship that results, and we can hardly change it when the faculty is so overworked that personal relationships to the children don’t actually arise as they should in order to achieve a moral and soul development parallel to the intellectual and spiritual development. Beginning in the eighth grade, the moral influence of the faculty upon the students is very much lacking. There is also no contact between the students and teachers outside class of the sort that should exist, so when the students of the eighth grade have certain tendencies, they are left too much to themselves morally. We do not speak about the students in the way we would if we had closer contact with them. The letter you wrote me about R. resulted from your classroom relationship. There was nothing visible in it to indicate that you had a personal relationship to the students. It was also quite clear from your verbal reports today that you have no real contact with the students. I can certainly see that there is not enough time and that the teachers are overworked; on the other hand, it is an objective fact that things have been this way for a long time. What we are missing is something that should absolutely occur through the attitude of the Waldorf School pedagogy; an exact psychological picture of the students should live within the teachers, but a detailed psychological picture of the students does not live in the teachers’ souls. I do not know how the way you have developed this student psychology in your recent faculty meetings compares with the way it could have developed in meetings with me. You could have given some of the students in the higher grades some special attention here. I don’t know to what extent you do that when you meet by yourselves, but what exists is certainly not what it should be.
We now have these three children, N.N., S.Z., and W.R. There was a slight limitation in N.N.’s mental capacities, which could have been healed through energetic and longer-lasting psychological treatment. Whenever we spoke about N., I said that if he were treated such that he developed some trust, then he would be able to come to a teacher when he was in need and relate to that teacher as he would to a father. That would have improved the situation. My impression is that you did not do that, so N.N., who would have been easy to treat, in fact did not develop the deep love for a teacher that would have enabled him to improve. In such cases, discussions about morality do not help. The only thing that can help is for the student to form such a close relationship with a teacher that he or she feels especially drawn to that teacher. However, such contact has not developed, though I had hoped it would. Now he has left, but we have certainly not earned any medals for helping him firm up his moral stance.
Now we come to S.Z. Although I do not know him as well, it seems he has a moderate moral and intellectual weakness. He seems to be a boy who is intellectually weak and easily influenced. Probably he is relatively suggestible, so that a strong moral influence would affect him just as much as a less-good one. As things stand, he is to a large extent morally ruined, and the effects of this have been going on for several months, so that the moral problem exists in addition to the moderate intellectual weaknesses.
Now we have W.R. He is clearly not just moderately, but extremely weak intellectually. In saying this, I need to remind you that young people can be extremely weak-minded in that they cannot use their intellects for doing anything more than busywork well. Such people can create basic and exact judgments and can seem quite clever. Nevertheless, in W.R. we have an absolute and constitutional weak-mindedness. We could have held him only if there had been an inner harmony between the care he receives at school and where he is living, so that he would have been strongly influenced by the school and by where he lives. Neither of these happened. Both where he was living and the school left him to himself in regard to his morals. No one worked with him. R.’s inner problems are therefore extremely great. These are things we must clearly examine from a psychological perspective. If the Waldorf School is to continue to exist, we need to think seriously about how we can overcome them. If the Waldorf School is to continue, everyone’s goodwill must act together, perhaps by having, prior to a new school year, a series of teachers’ meetings where we discuss the moral position of the school. We cannot move forward otherwise. We have a major deficiency in that regard. My first thought is that you have forgotten there must be a strong contact between the teachers and the students, and that concerns the school.
Concerning the two students, Z. and R., in spite of the fact that they were in the Waldorf School, they have come to behave as they did recently, and we have no real hope of favorably influencing them if they continue at the Waldorf School. Your lack of contact has become too great to have any real effects upon them. Thus, after what we have seen, we must unfortunately say, and this is quite painful, that if these two students remain in the Waldorf School, they will become worse and worse from a moral standpoint, and, in addition, they will infect others. What you have said in this meeting completely proves that. There is no possibility of thinking anything other than that they will become more and more morally depraved. We are faced with the fact, at least from our present knowledge of the situation, that we might be able to work with Z., but most certainly not with W.R. Z. may improve, and that is something we could attempt. Due to his suggestibility, we may be able to achieve an improvement with S.Z. We could consider that. As long as we had to deal only with Z., I said we should keep him, and I wanted to do that even against his father’s wishes. However, if both boys remain, they will most certainly become worse. There can, however, be no discussion about W.R. remaining in the school. The situation is extremely tragic, primarily because it is a question of conscience for our school. We need to admit that we presented the school to these two boys in such a way that the school was incapable of improving them morally.
Neither of the boys is a kleptomaniac. They are weak-minded, not kleptomaniacs, and they have an intellectual and moral weakness in addition to the weakness in their souls, which makes the problem particularly difficult. If they were kleptomaniacs, we could consider giving them some therapy, but since they are weakminded, there is nothing we can do but put them in a class for weak-minded children. That, however, is unthinkable.
The way things now stand, we have no real authority with W.R. It is quite clear that there has been an inner corruption of both boys for several months. Therefore, there is nothing we can do with R. other than advise that he be removed from the school.
We could give S.Z. a short probationary period during which we would really have to pay attention and try to work with him. With W.R., the situation is difficult. He should go someplace where there is a systematic working toward moral improvement. Of course, I don’t mean a normal juvenile home. If he remains in the school, he will become worse than he already is. If he leaves school and is left to himself, he will become even worse than if he remains in school. He needs to be placed with a family who will improve him morally, or maybe in some institution. There is nothing more that can be done with this boy. You need to accept his situation by recognizing that his inner moral corruption has reached an enormous level as a result of his intense constitutional weak-mindedness. It would be dangerous for both the school and the boy himself for him to remain in school in the same situation. We should look for a family.
We cannot protect the two boys from the juvenile court. They will most certainly be sentenced. Is there some way we can involve an expert in the sentencing? In such a situation, we would have to find a local doctor willing to be an expert for the cases.
I have to admit it is, in a certain sense, very strange that it is particularly the children of anthroposophists who develop so poorly in the Waldorf School. The children who were expelled some time ago were also children of anthroposophists.
What I mentioned before from a general perspective, namely, that you lack contact with the children, is something we should concern ourselves with. That weighs on me heavily, and I have also noticed it through other symptoms. The faculty has not developed a sufficiently penetrating psychological view of the individual students because—the problem is not that you need more time, but that you need to develop a desire for this contact, so that what the teacher wants is also wanted by the students. That is a quality you can learn, but now you engage in a certain distancing.
When I was going through the classes, I also noticed a tone I have often mentioned, an academic tone, which has increased rather than decreased. You are lecturing. To an extent, you make some attempts to use the Socratic method, but take a closer look at what often occurs. You lecture and ask questions now and then, but the questions you ask are generally trivial. You delude yourselves when the students answer such obvious things correctly. You simply throw everything else at the children in overwhelming lectures. There is a major difference in the way the lower grades are taught, but beginning with the eighth grade, you no longer have any appropriate intimate contact with the students. So far, there is no lecturing in the little children’s classes. There, things are considerably better. This certainly lies heavily upon my heart. I have often mentioned it, but you have not really done much to relieve the situation. You should say what you wish now; then we need to discuss some other things.
A teacher: What exists in the constitutions of these children? You spoke of a constitutional weak-mindedness.
Dr. Steiner: Where kleptomania is present, the situation is such that the human being has polaric constitutional aspects. The head tends to want to assimilate everything. The head is one pole, whereas the metabolism, which carries moral perception, is the other. It is possible to show that schematically by drawing a lemniscate. The head does not recognize property rights, it recognizes only an absolute ownership of everything that comes into its realm. The other pole recognizes morality. When, however, the function of the head enters the will, kleptomania results. This illness results because the aspect that belongs in the head exists in the will. Stealing is something quite different from a tendency to kleptomania, which is expressed through mental absences during stealing. The person takes things upon seeing them, because the item stolen seduces the person into doing clever things to obtain it. The symptoms of kleptomania are clearly delineated.
The situation with N.N. could have been a borderline case of kleptomania; with the other two boys, though, we are dealing with moral insanity, an absolute inability of the physical functioning of the head to comprehend lying. They have not fully come into their etheric and physical bodies. This is not a sudden event like epilepsy, but a continuous mental absence.
W.R. is someone who is never quite here. He does not go around like other people, but more like a sleepwalker. He even soaks up the rays of light that fall upon him from the side. He does not see like other people. The position of his eyes is quite abnormal. Also, his temples have hardened, so the astral body cannot enter. There is, therefore, a clear case of weak-mindedness inherited from both the father and mother, which inhibits him from comprehending what is allowable or not. He cannot grasp it, it always slips away from him. It is like trying to grasp a piece of glass that has been covered with oil. Since intellectual judgments occur within the etheric body and are then reflected back by the astral body, he can be quite extraordinary intellectually. If a human being is to develop moral impulses, the etheric body must grasp the physical body, but that is not the case with him. He is incapable of saying this is good so I may do it, and that is not, and so forth. In order to form a judgment, it is necessary to do more than simply to connect the subject and the predicate. An intense strength is also needed to feel or live your way into the judgment. He can certainly connect subject and predicate, but only in pictures, not in the will. That is why he is unable to develop a sense of morality. Just think for a moment how strong the hereditary influence is in him. It is really very strong.
Why does he lie? He lies because it is not possible for him to judge something due to the weakness of his will power, and thus he cannot develop a sense for truth. It does not matter to him whether he says something is white or black, whether he says yes or no. It has nothing to do with the integrity of his insight. You need to differentiate between integrity of insight, which can be completely present, and the intensity with which judgments can be grasped and held. Weak-minded people are lacking in their capacity to retain judgments. They simply cannot grasp the judgment. That has nothing to do with logic. It is a purely psychological phenomenon.
A teacher: What should we tell the class?
Dr. Steiner: You should tell the class that R. can no longer be in the class because of what he has done. You do not have to moralize about him. You could mention that in human society we must respect property, and that that is necessary in earthly life. As much as we like him, it is impossible for him to remain at the school. S.Z. is a little weak-minded.
I need to give things a new direction. At the beginning of September, I will be giving two courses in Dornach, one about pastoral medicine and the other on theology. I will be here later in September to give a seminar on these questions.
A teacher says it is difficult to develop contact with the students in the short period of time available and asks Dr. Steiner to help.
Dr. Steiner: I will do what I can, but do not forget that the problem is primarily a question of your interest in the children and young people, and is a question of enthusiasm. It is not without reason that I emphasize at every opportunity that we cannot move forward in any area without enthusiasm and without some inner flexibility. Actually, if I—I mean it is really bad. I do not see any of that enthusiasm. I do not see you making any effort to really create it. If I could actually do everything I need to do, I would, for example, look to see how many chairs I could find pitch on following a teachers’ meeting. It seems to me as though you are glued to your seats, you are tired. You cannot be tired if you are to live in the spirit. Being tired is simply a lack of interest. These are things that must be said.
You have to use some pedagogical tricks to get a psychological picture of the students, and we want to speak about those later. The most important things, however, are enthusiasm and interest, but enthusiasm cannot be taught. I have a slight impression that for some of you, teaching has become boring. You have not the least interest. We need enthusiasm. We have no need for superiority or clever thinking. We need to use the method upon ourselves in order not to become tired. You are also tired in the classroom when you should be teaching. That cannot continue. That is the same as if a eurythmist sat through rehearsal. This picture is terrible; it is without any style.
A teacher: What is actually an “old member”?
Dr. Steiner: Some people can be old members even though they have been in the Society only three days.
Neunundsechzigste Konferenz
Im Juli hielt Rudolf Steiner zwei große Kurse zugleich in Dornach, den Heil-pädagogischen Kurs (GA 317) und den Lauteurythmie-Kurs (GA 279). Am 14. Juli aber reiste er mit Marie Steiner nach Stuttgart wegen der Liquidation der Aktiengesellschaft «Der Kommende Tag». «Geistige Betriebe», darunter die Waldorfschule, waren von dieser Aktiengesellschaft mitfinanziert worden.
Wegen dieser schwierigen Verhandlungen war Steiner in Stuttgart, als ihn eine Hiobsbotschaft aus der Schule erreichte. Eine nicht geplante Konferenz wurde am Nachmittag des 15. Juli abgehalten. Danach reiste Steiner weiter nach Holland u.a. zu den pädagogischen Vorträgen in Arnheim, ,,Der pädagogische Wert der Menschenerkenntnis und der Kulturwert der Pädagogik» (GA 310).
Themen: Intellektuell-geistige Entwicklung: Der Waldorfschüler ist weit entwickelt; das Seelisch-Moralische ist zurückgeblieben. Ursachenforschung.
Bemerkungen: Drei Schüler der 11. Klasse waren moralisch entgleist. Sie waren seit drei, vier Jahren in der Schule, alle mehr oder welliger schwach begabt (Steiner gebraucht das heute unübliche Wort «Schwachsinn»).
Trotzdem warf er der Lehrerschaft vor, sich nicht um die Schüler gekümmert zu haben. Er meinte, die Lehrer seien zwar überlastet, aber Interesse und Begeisterung sollten aufgebracht werden können.
Es Gelen Sätze wie «wenn die Waldorfschule bestehen bleiben soll» und: «dass vor einem neuen Schulanfang, wenn die Waldorfschule fortgehen soll, vor dem neuen Anfang unbedingt in einer Reihe von Lehrerkonferenzen gerade über diese moralische Haltung der Schule verhandelt werden muss».
Immer wieder hielt er den Kollegen vor, dass das Interesse an den Schülerpersönlichkeiten fehle, dass die «psychologischen Bilder» in den Konferenzen, wo er nicht anwesend war, nicht gemacht worden seien. (Damit meinte er die Kinder- oder Schülerbetrachtungen).
Ernst Lehrs bat um Hinweise. Steiner antwortete ihm: «Verkennen Sie nur nicht, dass die Frage vorzugsweise eine Sache des Interesses an den Kindern und jugendlichen Leuten ist, und eine Sache des Enthusiasmus.»
Zu Beginn analysierte er den Vorfall und sagte u.a.: «wenn wir eine so überlastete Lehrerschaft haben wie bis jetzt». Abschließend aber meint er: «Ein Mensch kann doch nicht müde sein, wenn er im Geiste leben soll. Müde sein ist doch eine Sache der Interesselosigkeit.»
Vorsitz: Rudolf Steinen
RUDOLF STEINER: Ich habe eigentlich nicht voraussetzen können, dass bei dem kurzen Aufenthalt eine Lehrerkonferenz möglich sein wird. Infolge der Hiobsnachricht, die ich erhielt, hielt ich es für unbedingt notwendig, diese Konferenz abzuhalten und die letzten Vorkommnisse zu besprechen. Es wird nicht möglich sein, heute die Konferenz so lange auszudehnen, da nachher noch eine Sitzung sein muss. Aber die Vorkommnisse der letzten Tage müssen doch besprochen werden. Ohne dass ich auf etwas anderes vorher eingehe, möchte ich daher bitten, die entsprechenden Vorkommnisse gleich zu besprechen.
WALTER JOHANNES STEIN berichtet über die Diebstahlangelegenheit S. P und R. VV. Eugen Kolisko berichtet ebenfalls.
RUDOLF STEINER: Sind denn beide Buben in der 11.? Sind in der letzten Zeit irgendwelche bemerkbaren Dinge vorgekommen?
WALTER JOHANNES STEIN: In der Schule selbst nicht. Er war teilnahmsvoll. S. R ist weniger interessiert am Unterricht.
RUDOLF STEINER: Nun liegt ja das vor, was die Frau Professor Gessler geschrieben hat.
Der S. P. wohnte doch zusammen mit E. S. bei Frau Gessler. R. W. hat gesagt: Wir wollten ihre Möbel bewundern. Das ist zweifellos der Augenblick gewesen, dass sich die beiden Jungen den Schlüssel von Frau Professor Gessler angeeignet haben, sodass die Frage entsteht, ist der S. P. selber stark aktiv gewesen, oder ist R. W. der [absolute] Versucher, was ja der Fall zu sein scheint.
MAX WOLFFHÜGEL spricht über die beiden Jungen: [Die Mutter klagt über schlechte Einflüsse, unter denen ihr Sohn seit einiger Zeit stehe. Seine künstlerischen Arbeiten sind seit derselben Zeit sehr verändert.]
RUDOLF STEINER: Wie lange sind [die Jungen} in der Schule?
Antwort: Drei Jahre ist S. P. in der Schule; vier Jahre ist R. W. da.
RUDOLF STEINER: R. W. hat auch das Geld gestohlen, Welcher Lehrer hat noch mit R. W. zu tun gehabt?
Mehrere Lehrer berichten.
RUDOLF STEINER: Die Fälle geben ungeheuer viel zu bedenken. Nachdem wir das uns angehört haben, geben sie umso mehr zu be-denken. Denn sie sind auch Symptome für etwas, was auch durch andere Dinge in letzter Zeit [sehr] stark hervorgetreten ist.
Nicht wahr, durch unsere Waldorfschul-Methode bringen wir die Kinder auf der einen Seite, nach der intellektuell-geistigen Art, wir bringen sie sehr weit. Und unsere Schüler sind ja tatsächlich weiter, als andere Schüler in diesem Alter sind. Das ist null eben nicht zu leugnen. Die ganze Schülerschaft ist von der 8. und 9. Klasse ab eben eine andere junge Menschheit, als es in den sonstigen Schulen der Fall ist.
Nun ist aber der Mensch, nicht wahr, ein Ganzes, und erforderlich ist schon, dass, wenn man den Menschen vorwärtsbringt in intellektuell-geistiger Weise, man ihn ebenso entsprechend vorwärtsbringen muss in moralisch-seelischer Weise. Nun ist es nicht zu leugnen, dass das Kontingent an Unterricht und Erziehung, das wir leisten in der Waldorfschule, sich im Wesentlichen doch beschränkt auf die Zeit, die die Kinder in den Schulstunden zubringen, und dass auch das Verhältnis zu den Schülern im Wesentlichen hergestellt wird durch dasjenige, was in den Unterrichtsstunden abläuft. Das ist allerdings durch die Verhältnisse herbeigeführt und kaum auch radikal zu ändern, wenn wir eine so überlastete Lehrerschaft haben wie bis jetzt, dass jenes persönliche Verhältnis zu den Kindern nicht eintritt, das tragen müsste, parallel gehend zur intellektuell-geistigen Entwicklung, die moralisch-seelische Entwicklung. Es fehlt der moralische Einfluss der Lehrerschaft auf die Schülerschaft von der 8. Klasse ab eigentlich doch sehr stark.
Auch besteht kein solcher moralischer Kontakt zwischen Lehrern und Schülern außerhalb des Unterrichts, wie er [bestehen sollte], sodass die Schüler der 8. Klasse, wenn sie in einer entsprechenden Weise organisiert sind, von der 8. Klasse ab zu stark moralisch auf sich selbst angewiesen sind.
Wir reden über die Schüler nicht so, wie wir reden würden, wenn wir in diesem moralischen Kontakt mit den Schülern stünden. Auch [der] Brief, den Sie mir geschrieben haben über R. W., ging hervor aus dem Verhältnis, das Sie hatten zu den beiden innerhalb der Schulstunden. Es war nichts ersichtlich davon, dass auch ein persönliches Verhältnis zu den Schülern da ist. Das ging heute auch aus den [mündlichen] Mitteilungen der Freunde über diese Schüler genügend hervor, dass dieser moralische Kontakt mit den Schülern [durchaus] fehlt.
[Gewiss], ich gebe gern zu, dass dazu die Zeit nicht vorhanden ist, dass die Lehrer überlastet sind, aber auf der anderen Seite ist es eine objektive Tatsache, dass es so geworden ist schon seit längerer Zeit.
Und nun besteht dadurch doch nicht das, was unbedingt bestehen müsste bei der übrigen Verfassung der Waldorfschul-Pädagogik, dass in den Lehrern ein genaues psychisches Bild der Schüler leben würde. Es lebt kein genaues psychisches Bild der Schüler in der Seele der Lehrer. Ich weiß nicht, in welcher Art in der letzten Zeit in der Lehrerkonferenz gerade diese Schülerpsychologie sich entwickelt hat, wie sie sich hätte entwickeln können im Anschluss an die Konferenzen mit mir. Es hätten doch die besonders beachtenswerten Individualitäten auch der höheren Klassen hier studiert werden können. Ich weiß noch nicht, wie weit das in den Konferenzen, in denen Sie allein sind, wirklich gemacht worden ist, aber es ist eben nicht das da, was unbedingt da sein sollte.
Nun, nicht wahr, wir haben diese drei Fälle H. H., S. P. und R. W. Bei H. H. lag ein nicht gerade sehr beträchtlicher, durch eine energische, ausdauernde psychische Behandlung zu heilender Schwachsinn vor. Daher habe ich auch immer, wenn es sich um H. H. handelte, gesagt, wenn es gelingt, den Jungen so zu behandeln, dass er Vertrauen fasst, das so weit gehen würde, dass er zu einem der Lehrer kommt, wenn er in Not ist, und sich zu ihm wie zu einem väterlichen Menschen verhält, dass dann die Sache besser werden könnte. Es ist doch nach meinem Eindruck nicht dazu gekommen, dass der H. H., der leicht zu behandeln gewesen wäre, tatsächlich jene energische Liebe zu irgendeiner Lehrkraft gefasst hätte, die ihn hätte bessern können. In einem solchen [Falle] hilft keine Unterweisung, keine Diskussion über moralische Dinge, hilft lediglich ein solches Verhältnis zum Lehrer, dass ein solcher Schüler besonders anhänglich ist und sich besonders hingezogen fühlt. Zu einem solchen Kontakt ist es nicht gekommen. Ich habe gehofft, dass es kommen könnte. Er ist nun draußen. Aber große Verdienste, um seine moralische Haltung zu festigen, haben wir uns eigentlich nicht erworben.
Kommt der Fall S. P. Das scheint so zu liegen, obwohl ich den Schüler weniger kenne, dass auch ein mäßiger moralischer und intellektueller Schwachsinn vorliegt. Er scheint ein schwachsinniger Junge zu sein, der stark beeinflussbar ist. Wahrscheinlich würde eine leichte Suggerierbarkeit beim S. P. vorliegen, sodass er für einen starken moralischen Einfluss ebenso zugänglich wäre wie für nichtsnutzige Einflüsse. Nun liegt die Sache so, [dass er schon in sehr hohem Maße moralisch verdorben ist], dass die Verderbnis nun aber [schon Monate durch] gewirkt haben muss, [sodass eine] moralische Verderbnis aufgepfropft ist auf diesen [zwar mäßigen, aber wesenhaften] Schwachsinn.
Nun, der Fall R. W. Er ist ein ausgesprochen, und zwar nicht mäßig, sondern stark schwachsinniger Junge, ein ausgesprochen schwachsinniger junge. Und nicht wahr, ich muss dabei immer wie-der erinnern: [Ein junger] Mensch kann vollständig schwachsinnig sein, ohne dass seine Intellektualität anders zu wirken braucht als so, dass man sagt, er macht gute Fleißaufgaben. Auch gründliche exakte Urteile können zustande kommen, er kann sich gescheit äußern, und dennoch liegt bei R. W. ein absoluter, konstitutioneller; starker Schwachsinn vor.
Er wäre nur zu halten gewesen, wenn ein inniger Einklang zwischen seiner Pflege im Hause Unger, im Kontakt mit der Schule vorhanden gewesen wäre, sodass R. W. stark beeindruckt gewesen wäre, sowohl von der Schule als auch vom Hause Unger. Beides war nicht der Fall. Sowohl das Unger'sche Haus wie die Schule, beide haben in moralischer Beziehung ihn sich selbst überlassen, sich nicht genug um ihn gekümmert. Die innere Verderbnis ist daher bei R. W. eine ganz außerordentlich große. Diese Dinge müssen wir uns in ihrer ganzen psychologischen Intensität vor Augen stellen.
Ernst werden wir daran denken müssen, dass wir dies überwinden müssen, wenn die Waldorfschule bestehen bleiben soll. Da muss der gute Wille [aller] zusammenwirken, vielleicht doch damit, dass vor einem neuen Schulanfang, wenn die Waldorfschule fortgehen soll, vor dem neuen Anfang unbedingt in einer Reihe von Lehrerkonferenzen gerade über diese moralische Haltung der Schule verhandelt werden muss. Wir kommen sonst nicht weiter. Das ist ein großer Mangel, der da ist. [Zunächst] kommt es mir vor, als ob vergessen [worden] wäre, dass ein starker Kontakt der Lehrer mit dem Schüler notwendig ist. Das ist es, was die Schule betrifft.
Was die beiden Schüler betrifft, P. und R. W., [so liegt die Sache so], dass nach all den Antezedenzien, die einmal da sind da-durch, dass die Schüler, trotzdem sie in der Waldorfschule waren, so geworden sind, wie sie sich in der letzten Zeit verhalten haben, gar keine Aussicht vorhanden ist, dass [diese beiden] in entsprechend starker Weise günstig beeinflusst werden können, wenn sie weiter in der Waldorfschule [bleiben]. Um irgendwelche Beeinflussungen wirksam zu machen, dazu ist das Außer-Kontakt-Kommen zu groß geworden. Sodass nach allem, was zutage gekommen ist, leider in schmerzlichster Weise gesagt werden muss, wenn diese beiden Schüler in der Waldorfschule bleiben — was in der Konferenz gesagt worden ist, beweist das vollständig werden sie moralisch immer schlechter und schlechter werden, [und sie werden außerdem auch noch manche andere anstecken]. Es ist keine Möglichkeit, an etwas anderes zu denken, als dass sie moralisch immer schlechter und schlechter werden. Sodass wir vor der notwendigen Tatsache stehen, nach dem, wie der Fall sich präsentiert, es könnte mit dem schwächeren S. P. vielleicht gehen, [mit] R. W. ganz sicher nicht. Es könnte [aber] sein, dass sich für S. P. eine [Besserung] vielleicht ergeben würde. [Das könnte versucht werden.] Bei 5. P. könnte bei seiner Suggerierbarkeit noch Besserung möglich sein. Der Fall wäre noch zu erwägen. Solange der Fall S. P. nur gespielt hat, habe ich ja gesagt, wir wollen ihn halten, wollen es selbst gegen den Vater durchzusetzen suchen. Aber wenn beide Buben hierbleiben, würden sie immer schlechter und schlechter werden, ganz sicher. Bei R. W. kann [keinesfalls] die Rede davon sein, dass er weiter in der Schule bleibt. Der Fall ist außerordentlich tragisch, auch schon dadurch, dass es eine Gewissensfrage für unsere Schule ist, indem wir uns gestehen müssen, wir haben doch auch die Schule vor diese beiden jungen so hingestellt, dass sie nicht in der Lage war, sie moralisch besser zu machen.
Kleptomanen sind sie beide nicht. Es liegt Schwachsinn, nicht Kleptomanie vor, [intellektueller und] moralischer Schwachsinn neben seelischem Schwachsinn. Das macht die Sache besonders schwierig. Wären sie Kleptomanen, so könnte man daran denken, irgendeine Therapie eintreten zu lassen, aber da sie schwachsinnig sind, würde uns nichts anderes übrig bleiben, als sie in eine Schwachsinnigenklasse zu geben. Das ist aber auch nicht denkbar.
Dem R. W. gegenüber haben wir nicht — wie jetzt die Sachen stehen — die durchgreifende Autorität. Es ist ja ganz offenbar, auch das, was Wolffhügel gesagt hat, passt gut hinein, dass bei diesen beiden Jungen eine innere Korruption schon seit Monaten Platz gegriffen hat. Also wir können nichts anderes tun, als bei R. W. [den Rat geben], ihn aus der Schule herauszunehmen.
Bei S. P. könnte man eine ganz kurze Probezeit lassen, bei der wir aber wirklich auf ihn aufpassen und uns wirklich [um ihn] kümmern. Bei R. W. ist es schwierig, Vater und Mutter sind ausgesprochen schwachsinnig. Ich weiß nicht, wer da in Betracht kommt, wenn dem Familienzusammenhang klargemacht werden soll, dass er nicht in der Schule sein kann. Er müsste direkt irgendwohin gebracht werden, wo systematisch auf moralische Besserung hingearbeitet wird. Nicht in eine gewöhnliche Besserungsanstalt selbstverständlich. Wenn R. W. in der Schule bleibt, so wird er schlechter, als er jetzt schon ist, sodass dann der Grad seiner Schlechtigkeit größer wird, als er jetzt schon ist. Wenn er aus der Schule kommt und sich selbst überlassen wird, würde er aber noch schlechter werden allerdings, als er hier in der Schule wird. Er müsste in eine Familie kommen, in der er moralisch gebessert wird. Oder in eine Anstalt oder so etwas. Etwas anderes [gibt es] für diesen Jungen nicht. Bei diesem jungen müssen Sie die Sache so hinnehmen, dass die innere moralische Korruption einen ungeheuren Grad erreicht hat infolge eines konstitutionellen, [sehr] intensiven Schwachsinns. Es wäre sowohl für die Schule wie für den Jungen selber sehr gefährlich, wenn er weiter unter denselben Verhältnissen in der Schule bliebe. Es müsste eine Familie gesucht werden. Ich werde morgen mit Doktor Unger selber sprechen,
Wir können die beiden Jungen nicht davor bewahren, dass sie vom Jugendgericht abgeurteilt werden. Sie werden unbedingt abgeurteilt. Aber gibt es nicht eine Möglichkeit, auf irgendeine Weise einen Sachverständigen in die Aburteilung hineinzuverwickeln?
Jemand bemerkt: Der Herr von Houwald ist Jugendrichter. Und dann ist der Modus der, dass der Strafbefehl gegeben wird und die Verhandlung ausgesetzt wird.
RUDOLF STEINER: Dann natürlich müsste sich eigentlich irgendeiner der hiesigen Ärzte finden, der sich der Fälle sachverständig annehmen würde. [Zu Eugen Kolisko] Wenn Sie es könnten, ich werde morgen mit Dr. Unger reden, dass gesorgt wird dafür, dass der Junge vom nächsten Schuljahr ab in anderer Weise behandelt wird. Es ist niemand anderer da als Dr. Unger, mit dem man verhandeln kann in dieser Angelegenheit.
Nun aber muss ich schon sagen, in einem gewissen Sinne ist doch die Tatsache höchst merkwürdig, dass hier in der Waldorfschule gerade just Anthroposophenkinder so schlecht gedeihen. Es waren doch auch damals Anthroposophenkinder, die ausgeschlossen worden sind.
Ja, nun, dies, was ich vorhin sagte, der allgemeine Gesichtspunkt, dass der Kontakt fehlt mit den Kindern, das ist doch etwas, womit wir uns beschäftigen müssen. Das liegt mir schwer auf der Seele. Das habe ich auch aus anderen Symptomen schon gemerkt. Es ist [doch noch] nicht dazu gekommen, dass die Lehrerschaft sich einen genügend [eindringlichen] psychologischen Blick für die einzelnen Schülerindividualitäten verschafft, und zwar doch aus dem Grunde, weil — es handelt sich nicht darum, dass man viel Zeit verwendet, sondern darum, dass man die Affinität für diesen Kontakt entwickelt, sodass das von dem Lehrer Gewollte auch von den Schülern so angesehen wird. [Es ist eine Eigenschaft, die man sich aneignen kann.] Es ist [jetzt] eine gewisse Fremdheit Ida].
Namentlich ist mir auch] das aufgefallen, [als ich durch die Klassen ging], es hat der Ton, von dem ich früher öfter gesprochen habe, der Ton des Akademischen, der hat eigentlich noch eher zugenommen als abgenommen. Es wird doziert. Man sucht zwar ein bisschen sokratische Methode anzuwenden, aber [untersuchen] Sie doch einmal, wie sehr häufig vorgegangen wird. Man doziert und fragt auch [dazwischen], aber das, was man fragt, sind in der Regel die dazwischenliegenden Trivialitäten. Man täuscht sich darüber hinweg, dass die Selbstverständlichkeiten beantwortet werden.
Das andere wird zu stark in dozierender Weise den Kindern an den Kopf geworfen. Es ist ein großer Unterschied zwischen der Unterweisung in den Klassen für die Kleinen, aber gerade von der 8. Klasse an ist nicht ein richtiger intimer Kontakt mit den Schülern [da]. In den Klassen für die Kleinen geht das Dozieren ja nicht. Da ist es wesentlich besser. Dieses also liegt mir wirklich sehr schwer auf dem Herzen. Es ist von mir auch schon oft [darüber] gesprochen worden, [aber], nicht wahr, es wird eigentlich nicht viel getan, um in dieser Richtung irgendeine Abhilfe eintreten zu lassen. Äußern Sie sieh, soweit Sie es wollen. Dann wollen wir einige Dinge noch besprechen.
EUGEN KOLISKO: [Was liegt für eine Konstitution vor bei diesen beiden? Sie haben von konstitutionellem Schwachsinn gesprochen.]
RUDOLF STEINER: Wo Kleptomanie vorhanden ist, ist eigentlich die Sache so: Der Mensch hat diese gegenteiligen polarischen [Organisationen]. Die Kopforganisation ist so veranlagt, dass sie auf die Aneignung von allem geht; man muss sich alles aneignen. Die Kopf-organisation ist der eine Pol, [während der andere Pol, die Stoffwechselorganisation, das moralische Empfinden trägt]. Man kann das sogar schematisch zeichnen, [indem] man eine Lemniskate zeichnet. Die Kopforganisation kennt das Eigentum nicht, sie kennt nur einen absoluten Besitz von allem, was in ihren Bereich kommt. Der andere Pol kennt das Moralische. Wenn aber die Organisation des Kopfes einfach herunterrutscht und in die Willensorganisation hineingeht, so entsteht die Kleptomanie. Dieser Erkrankung liegt zugrunde, dass der Mensch in seiner Willensorganisation die Elemente hat, die in die Kopforganisation hineingehören. [Das Stehlen ist] ganz verschieden von dieser kleptomanischen Anlage, die sich in starken Absenzen während des Stehlens äußert. Es wird der Stoff mehr unter dem Anblick des zu stehlenden Gegenstandes genommen. Der Gegenstand ist der Verführer; es werden keine raffinierten Dinge angestellt, um den Gegenstand zu bekommen. Das Symptomenbild [der Kleptomanie] ist scharf abgegrenzt.
Der Fall H. H. hätte ein Grenzfall [gegen Kleptomanie hin] sein können. Bei diesen [beiden] Jungen liegt [aber] vor «moral insanity», ein absolutes Nicht-erfassen-Können, schon im Kopf, der physischen Organisation, ein Nicht-hinein-Kommen in den ätherischen und physischen Leib. [Nicht epileptisch plötzliche, sondern fortdauernde Absenzen.]
Der R. W. ist ein Mensch, der nie ganz bei sich ist, der [nicht] herumgeht [wie ein gewöhnlicher Mensch, sondern] wie ein Somnambuler. Bei ihm werden sogar die Lichtstrahlen aufgenommen, die von der Seite kommen. Er sieht nicht so, wie ein gewöhnlicher Mensch. Ganz abnorm ist seine Augenhaltung. Außerdem ist die Schläfenorganisation [des Gehirns] verhärtet. Da kann schon nicht der Astralleib herein. Es liegt also ausgesprochener Schwachsinn vor, der hereditär ist von Vater und Mutter, der überhaupt verhindert, an eine solche Urteilsfällung heranzukommen, irgendetwas ist erlaubt oder nicht erlaubt. [Er kann es nicht fassen, es entgleitet ihm immer.] Es ist so, wie wenn man eine Glasscheibe [anfassen will], die man mit Fett beschmiert hat. (Da das Intellekt-Urteil sich im Ätherleib abspielt und vorn Astralleib dann zurückgestrahlt wird], kann er intellektuell ganz außerordentlich sein. Soll aber der Mensch moralische Impulse entwickeln, so muss der physische Leib [vom Ätherleib] erfasst werden. [Und das ist nicht der Fall. Er hat nicht die Affinität, sich zu sagen, dies ist gut, das darfst du tun, das nicht, und so weiter.] Uni ein Urteil zu bilden, [dazu] gehört nicht bloß die Verbindung von Subjekt und Prädikat, sondern es gehört die intensive Kraft dazu, [sich in das Urteil hineinzufühlen (hineinzuleben?). Subjekt und Prädikat kann er wohl verbinden, aber nur im Bilde, nicht im Willen. Daher] kommt er nicht dazu, moralische Affinität zu entwickeln. Bedenken Sie nur einmal, wie stark hereditär das [bei ihm] ist!
Kennen Sie den Vater? H. W. ist Maler. Er kam wiederholt zu mir, in verflossenen Jahren, und sagte: Ich komme nicht weiter, ich kann kein Objekt finden, ich weiß nicht, was ich malen soll, Früher konnte den einzelnen Mitgliedern Malarbeit zugewendet werden. Ein Bild liegt mir besonders auf der Seele. [Er trägt es seit 25 Jahren mit sich herum, aber] er konnte absolut nicht zur Fassung eines Willensurteils kommen, dass er den Pinsel in die Hand nahm und malte. In Europa hat er nicht mehr einen Willen in dem Körper gefühlt. So dachte er sich, dass er es in Amerika fühlen wird. Die Mutter hat die Illusion, dass sie die Bücher ganz genau kennt, deren Titel sie nicht einmal weiß. Sie kennt gar nichts, ist aber immer als eine gescheite Person behandelt worden. Sie ist eben schwachsinnig. Das ist vielleicht etwas novellistisch ausgeschmückt. Davon ist das der Sohn. Nun haben wir einen älteren Sohn. Es ist schon sehr schwer.
Bei dem älteren Jungen ist es schwächer, aber ähnlich konstituiert. Warum lügt der Junge? Er lügt deshalb, weil es ihm bei der geringen Intensität [der Willenskräfte beim Fällen eines Urteils] nicht möglich ist, einen Sinn [für Wahrheit] zu entwickeln. Ihm ist es egal, ob er sagt, etwas ist weiß, oder [es ist] schwarz, [ob er Nein oder Ja sagt. Intaktsein der Einsicht hat nichts damit zu tun]. Sie müssen unterscheiden zwischen dem Intaktsein der Einsicht, [die kann vollkommen da sein], und jener intensiven Fangkraft, die das Urteil abfängt. Bei dem Schwachsinnigen fehlt diese intensive Fangkraft, das Urteil abzufangen. [Er kommt nicht dazu, es zu fassen, das Urteil. Das hat nichts mit Logik zu tun, sondern das] ist eine psychologische Sache,
Es wird eine Frage gestellt.
RUDOLF STEINER: Der Klasse muss man sagen, weil er dies getan hat, kann er nicht mehr in der [Klasse] sein. Man braucht nicht moralisch ihn zu verschimpfen. Hinweisen, dass es so ist in der menschlichen Gesellschaft, dass man das Eigentum achten muss, dass das im Erdenleben eine notwendige Einrichtung ist. So gerne man ihn hat, ist es unmöglich, dass er in normaler Weise in der Schule bleiben kann.
S. P. ist schwach schwachsinnig.
Ich muss einen neuen Einschlag geben. Ich werde im Anfang September zwei Kurse abhalten in Dornach, [über] Pastoralmedizin [und über] Theologie. [Ich werde dann danach hier im September einen Seminarkurs abhalten über diese Dinge.]
ERNST LEHRS spricht davon, dass es schwer ist, in der kurzen Zeit einen Kontakt mit den Schülern zu bekommen, und bittet Rudolf Steiner, zu helfen.
RUDOLF STE1NER: Ich will mich bemühen. Verkennen Sie nur nicht, dass die Frage [vorzugsweise] eine Sache des Interesses an den Kindern und den jugendlichen Leuten ist, [und eine Sache des Enthusiasmus]. Es ist nicht umsonst, dass ich bei jeder Gelegenheit betone, dass wir auf allen Gebieten nicht vorwärtskommen ohne Enthusiasmus, ohne innere Beweglichkeit. Wirklich, wenn ich — ich meine, [es ist] ja schlimm, aber diesen Enthusiasmus, den sehe ich nicht; ich kann nicht finden, dass Mühe gegeben wird, ihn wirklich hervorzuzaubern. Sehen Sie, wenn ich so alles ausführen könnte, was sich mir aufdrängt, so würde ich zum Beispiel nach einer Lehrerkonferenz probieren, auf wie viel Stühlen Pech klebt, wenn die Lehrerkonferenz zu Ende ist. Es kommt mir vor, Sie kleben auf Ihren Sitzen, Sie sind müde. [Ein Mensch] kann doch nicht müde sein, wenn er im Geiste leben soll. Müde sein ist doch eine Sache der Interesselosigkeit. Diese Dinge muss man so zum Ausdruck bringen.
Psychologische Bilder von den Schülern zu gewinnen, [dazu gehören auch pädagogisch-technische Kunstgriffe, von denen wollen wir reden].
Was [aber] vor allen Dingen dazugehört, das ist Enthusiasmus und Interesse. [Die Begeisterung kann man nicht lehren.] Ich habe schon ein bisschen den Eindruck, dass für den Einzelnen von uns die Führung des Unterrichts etwas langweilig geworden ist. Es ist nicht das elementare Interesse da. Wir brauchen Enthusiasmus. Wir brauchen nicht vornehme Überlegenheit und spitzfindiges Nachdenken. Wir müssen auf uns selbst die Methode anwenden, nicht müde zu sein. Auch in den Klassen sind die Freunde müde, wenn sie unterrichten sollen. Das geht nicht. Das ist geradeso, wie wenn man eine Eurythmistin sitzen sieht während der Proben. Es gibt ein Bild, das furchtbar ist. Das ist stillos.
Der altsprachliche Lehrplan. S. P.s Schwester soll die pädagogischen Vorträge lesen.
KARL STOCKMEYER: Wer ist denn eigentlich als ein «altes Mitglied» anzusehen?
RUDOLF STEINER: Mancher kann ein altes Mitglied sein, wenn er drei Tage in der Gesellschaft ist.
Dem Herrn Sommer kann man vertrauen.
Sixty-ninth Conference
In July, Rudolf Steiner held two major courses simultaneously in Dornach, the Curative Education Course (GA 317) and the Eurythmy Course (GA 279). On July 14, however, he traveled with Marie Steiner to Stuttgart because of the liquidation of the joint-stock company “Der Kommende Tag” (The Coming Day). “Spiritual enterprises,” including the Waldorf School, had been co-financed by this joint-stock company.
Due to these difficult negotiations, Steiner was in Stuttgart when he received bad news from the school. An unscheduled conference was held on the afternoon of July 15. Steiner then traveled on to Holland, among other places, to give educational lectures in Arnhem, “The Educational Value of Knowledge of Human Nature and the Cultural Value of Education” (GA 310).
Topics: Intellectual and spiritual development: Waldorf students are highly developed; their emotional and moral development is lagging behind. Investigation of causes.
Comments: Three 11th grade students were morally derailed. They had been at the school for three or four years and were all more or less weak in intellect (Steiner uses the word “feeble-minded,” which is uncommon today).
Nevertheless, he accused the teaching staff of not caring about the students. He believed that although the teachers were overworked, they should still be able to muster interest and enthusiasm.
He used phrases such as “if the Waldorf school is to survive” and “before the start of a new school year, if the Waldorf school is to continue, it is essential that this moral attitude of the school be discussed in a series of teachers' conferences before the new beginning.”
He repeatedly reproached his colleagues for their lack of interest in the personalities of the students, saying that the “psychological pictures” had not been made in the conferences where he was not present. (By this he meant the observations of the children or students).
Ernst Lehrs asked for advice. Steiner replied: “Don't misunderstand that the question is primarily a matter of interest in children and young people, and a matter of enthusiasm.”
At the beginning, he analyzed the incident and said, among other things: “if we have such an overworked teaching staff as we have had up to now.” In conclusion, however, he said: “A person cannot be tired if he is to live in the spirit. Being tired is a matter of lack of interest.”
Chair: Rudolf Steinen
RUDOLF STEINER: I did not actually expect that a teachers' conference would be possible during this short stay. However, as a result of the bad news I received, I considered it absolutely necessary to hold this conference and discuss the latest events. It will not be possible to extend the conference for very long today, as there is another meeting to attend afterwards. But the events of the last few days must be discussed. Without going into anything else beforehand, I would therefore like to ask that we discuss the relevant events right away.
WALTER JOHANNES STEIN reports on the theft involving S. P and R. VV. Eugen Kolisko also reports.
RUDOLF STEINER: Are both boys in the 11th grade? Have any noticeable things happened recently?
WALTER JOHANNES STEIN: Not at school itself. He was sympathetic. S. R. is less interested in class.
RUDOLF STEINER: Now we have what Professor Gessler wrote.
S. P. lived with E. S. at Mrs. Gessler's house. R. W. said: We wanted to admire her furniture. That was undoubtedly the moment when the two boys took Professor Gessler's key, which raises the question of whether S. P. himself was very active, or whether R. W. was the [absolute] tempter, which seems to be the case.
MAX WOLFFHÜGEL talks about the two boys: [The mother complains about the bad influences her son has been under for some time. His artistic work has changed a lot since then.]
RUDOLF STEINER: How long have [the boys] been at school?
Answer: S. P. has been at the school for three years; R. W. has been there for four years.
RUDOLF STEINER: R. W. also stole the money. Which teacher has had anything to do with R. W.?
Several teachers report.
RUDOLF STEINER: These cases give us a great deal to think about. After hearing about them, they give us even more to think about. For they are also symptoms of something that has become [very] apparent through other things lately.
It is true that, on the one hand, through our Waldorf school method, we bring the children a long way in an intellectual and spiritual sense. And our students are indeed further ahead than other students of the same age. That cannot be denied. From the 8th and 9th grades onwards, the entire student body is a different young humanity than is the case in other schools.
But now, human beings are a whole, and it is necessary that when we advance them intellectually and spiritually, it is also necessary to advance them morally and spiritually. Now, it cannot be denied that the amount of teaching and education we provide in Waldorf schools is essentially limited to the time the children spend in school, and that the relationship with the students is also essentially established through what what happens in the classroom. However, due to the circumstances and with such an overburdened teaching staff as we have at present, it is difficult to radically change this situation, which means that the personal relationship with the children that should support their moral and spiritual development in parallel with their intellectual and spiritual development does not come about. The moral influence of the teaching staff on the students from the 8th grade onwards is actually very weak.
Nor is there any such moral contact between teachers and students outside of class as there [should be], so that 8th grade students, if they are organized in an appropriate manner, are too morally dependent on themselves from the 8th grade onwards.
We do not talk about the students in the same way we would if we were in this moral contact with them. Even the letter you wrote to me about R. W. was based on the relationship you had with the two of them during school hours. There was no indication that you also had a personal relationship with the students. This was also evident today from the [verbal] comments made by friends about these students, that this moral contact with the students is [completely] lacking.
[Certainly], I readily admit that there is not enough time for this, that the teachers are overworked, but on the other hand, it is an objective fact that this has been the case for quite some time.
And now, as a result, what should absolutely exist in the rest of Waldorf school pedagogy, namely that teachers have a precise psychological picture of their students, does not exist. There is no precise psychological picture of the students in the souls of the teachers. I do not know how this student psychology has developed in recent times in the teachers' conferences, how it could have developed following the conferences with me. The particularly noteworthy individualities of the higher classes could also have been studied here. I do not yet know to what extent this has actually been done in the conferences in which you are alone, but it is simply not there, which is what should definitely be there.
Well, we have these three cases: H. H., S. P., and R. W. H. H. had a not particularly severe case of mental deficiency that could be cured by energetic, persistent psychological treatment. That is why I always said, when it came to H. H., that if we succeeded in treating the boy in such a way that he gained enough confidence to come to one of the teachers when he was in need and treat him like a father figure, then things could improve. It is my impression that H. H., who would have been easy to treat, did not actually develop the kind of energetic love for any teacher that could have improved him. In such a [case], no instruction, no discussion of moral issues helps; the only thing that helps is a relationship with the teacher that makes such a student particularly affectionate and attracted. Such a connection did not develop. I had hoped that it might. He is now out. But we have not really earned any great merit in strengthening his moral attitude.
Take the case of S. P. Although I know the student less well, it seems to be the case that he also suffers from moderate moral and intellectual disability. He seems to be a feeble-minded boy who is easily influenced. S. P. is probably slightly suggestible, so that he would be just as susceptible to strong moral influence as to useless influences. The situation is now such [that he is already morally corrupt to a very high degree], but the corruption must have been at work [for months], [so that] moral corruption has been grafted onto this [moderate but essential] mental deficiency.
Now, the case of R. W. He is a distinctly, and not moderately, but severely mentally deficient boy, a distinctly mentally deficient boy. And isn't it true that I always have to remind myself: [A young] person can be completely mentally deficient without his intellectuality having to appear any different than that one would say he does good work when he applies himself. He can also make thorough, accurate judgments and express himself intelligently, and yet R. W. suffers from absolute, constitutional, severe mental retardation.
He could only have been kept if there had been a close harmony between his care at the Unger home and his contact with the school, so that R. W. would have been strongly impressed by both the school and the Unger home. Neither was the case. Both the Unger household and the school left him to his own devices in moral terms and did not care enough for him. R. W.'s inner depravity is therefore extremely great. We must face up to these things in all their psychological intensity.
We must seriously consider that we need to overcome this if the Waldorf school is to continue to exist. The goodwill of [everyone] must work together, perhaps by ensuring that before the start of a new school year, if the Waldorf school is to continue, this moral attitude of the school must be discussed in a series of teachers' conferences before the new beginning. Otherwise, we will not make any progress. This is a major shortcoming that exists. [First of all], it seems to me that it has been forgotten that strong contact between teachers and students is necessary. That is what concerns the school.
As far as the two students are concerned, P. and R. W., [the situation is such] that, given all the antecedents that exist, given that the students, despite having attended the Waldorf school, have behaved as they have in recent times, there is no prospect whatsoever that [these two] can be influenced in a sufficiently positive way if they continue to attend the Waldorf school [. In order for any influence to be effective, the loss of contact has become too great. So, after everything that has come to light, it must unfortunately be said in the most painful way that if these two students remain at the Waldorf school — as was said in the conference, this proves completely — they will become morally worse and worse, [and they will also infect many others]. There is no possibility of thinking anything other than that they will become morally worse and worse. So we are faced with the necessary fact that, as the case presents itself, it might work with the weaker S. P., but certainly not with R. W. It could be, however, that there might be an improvement for S. P. [That could be tried.] With 5. P., improvement might still be possible given his suggestibility. The case would still have to be considered. As long as S. P. was only pretending, I said yes, we want to keep him, we want to try to enforce it even against his father. But if both boys stay here, they would get worse and worse, for sure. In the case of R. W., there can be no question of him remaining at school. The case is extremely tragic, not least because it is a matter of conscience for our school, in that we have to admit that we have also presented the school to these two young people in such a way that it was not in a position to improve them morally.
Neither of them are kleptomaniacs. They are mentally deficient, not kleptomaniacs, [intellectually and] morally deficient as well as emotionally deficient. This makes the situation particularly difficult. If they were kleptomaniacs, we could consider some kind of therapy, but since they are mentally deficient, we would have no choice but to place them in a class for the mentally deficient. But that is also unthinkable.
As things stand at present, we do not have any real authority over R. W. It is quite obvious, and Wolffhügel's comments also fit in well with this, that these two boys have been suffering from inner corruption for months. So we can do nothing else but [advise] R. W. to take him out of school.
In S. P.'s case, we could allow a very short trial period, during which we would really keep an eye on him and really take care of him. In R. W.'s case, it is difficult; his father and mother are extremely feeble-minded. I don't know who could be considered if the family needs to be made aware that he cannot be at school. He would have to be taken directly to a place where systematic moral improvement is pursued. Not to an ordinary reformatory, of course. If R. W. stays in school, he will become worse than he already is, so that the degree of his wickedness will be greater than it already is. If he leaves school and is left to his own devices, however, he would become even worse than he is here at school. He would have to go to a family where he could be morally reformed. Or to an institution or something like that. There is no other option for this boy. With this boy, you have to accept that his inner moral corruption has reached an enormous degree as a result of a constitutional, [very] intense mental deficiency. It would be very dangerous for both the school and the boy himself if he remained at school under the same circumstances. A family would have to be found. I will speak to Dr. Unger myself tomorrow.
We cannot protect the two boys from being tried by the juvenile court. They will definitely be tried. But is there not a way to involve an expert in the trial in some way?
Someone remarks: Mr. von Houwald is a juvenile judge. And then the procedure is that the penalty order is issued and the hearing is suspended.
RUDOLF STEINER: Then, of course, one of the local doctors would have to be found who would take on the cases as an expert. [To Eugen Kolisko] If you could, I will talk to Dr. Unger tomorrow to ensure that the boy is treated differently from next school year onwards. There is no one else but Dr. Unger with whom one can negotiate in this matter.
But I must say that, in a certain sense, it is highly remarkable that it is precisely the children of anthroposophists who are doing so poorly here at the Waldorf School. After all, it was also the children of anthroposophists who were excluded back then.
Yes, well, what I said earlier, the general point of view that there is a lack of contact with the children, is something we need to address. It weighs heavily on my mind. I have already noticed this from other symptoms. The teaching staff has not [yet] developed a sufficiently [keen] psychological insight into the individual personalities of the students, and this is because — it is not a question of spending a lot of time, but of developing an affinity for this contact, so that what the teacher wants is also seen in this way by the students. [It is a quality that can be acquired.] There is [now] a certain strangeness [Ida].
I also noticed this [when I went through the classes]; the tone I have often spoken of before, the academic tone, has actually increased rather than decreased. Lectures are given. They do try to use the Socratic method a little, but [examine] how often this is actually done. They lecture and also ask questions [in between], but what they ask are usually trivialities. They deceive themselves into thinking that the obvious questions are being answered.
The other things are thrown at the children in too didactic a manner. There is a big difference between teaching the younger children, but from the 8th grade onwards, there is no real intimate contact with the students. Lecturing is not possible in the classes for the little ones. It is much better there. This is something that really weighs heavily on my heart. I have often spoken about it, but not much is actually being done to remedy the situation. Express your opinion as far as you want. Then we will discuss a few more things.
EUGEN KOLISKO: [What is the constitution of these two? You spoke of constitutional idiocy.]
RUDOLF STEINER: Where kleptomania is present, the situation is actually as follows: the person has these opposing polar [organizations]. The head organization is predisposed to acquire everything; one must acquire everything. The head organization is one pole, [while the other pole, the metabolic organization, carries the moral sense]. One can even draw this schematically [by] drawing a lemniscate. The head organization does not recognize property; it only recognizes absolute possession of everything that comes into its sphere. The other pole recognizes morality. But when the organization of the head simply slips down and enters the organization of the will, kleptomania arises. This disorder is based on the fact that the human being has elements in his organization of the will that belong in the organization of the head. [Stealing is] quite different from this kleptomaniac disposition, which manifests itself in strong absences during the act of stealing. The material is taken more under the gaze of the object to be stolen. The object is the seducer; no sophisticated tricks are used to obtain the object. The symptom picture [of kleptomania] is sharply defined.
The case of H. H. could have been a borderline case [towards kleptomania]. In these [two] boys, however, there is “moral insanity,” an absolute inability to comprehend, already in the mind, the physical organization, an inability to enter the etheric and physical body. [Not sudden epileptic seizures, but continuous absences.]
R. W. is a person who is never quite himself, who [does not] walk around [like a normal person, but] like a somnambulist. He even absorbs the rays of light coming from the side. He does not see like a normal person. His eye position is completely abnormal. In addition, the temporal organization [of the brain] is hardened. The astral body cannot enter there. So there is pronounced mental deficiency, which is hereditary from the father and mother, which completely prevents him from reaching such a judgment, that something is allowed or not allowed. [He cannot grasp it; it always slips away from him.] It is like trying to touch a glass pane that has been smeared with grease. (Since intellectual judgment takes place in the etheric body and is then reflected back to the astral body], he can be intellectually extraordinary. But if a person is to develop moral impulses, the physical body must be grasped [by the etheric body]. [And that is not the case. He does not have the affinity to say to himself, this is good, you may do this, you may not do that, and so on.] Forming a judgment involves not only the connection between subject and predicate, but also the intense power to empathize with the judgment (to live it in?). He can connect subject and predicate, but only in the mind, not in the will. Therefore, he does not develop moral affinity. Just consider how strongly hereditary this is [in his case]!
Do you know his father? H. W. is a painter. He came to me repeatedly in years past and said: I can't get any further, I can't find an object, I don't know what to paint. In the past, painting work could be assigned to individual members. One picture is particularly close to my heart. [He has been carrying it around with him for 25 years, but] he was absolutely unable to come to a decision to pick up a brush and paint. In Europe, he no longer felt any will in his body. So he thought he would feel it in America. The mother has the illusion that she knows the books very well, even though she doesn't even know their titles. She knows nothing, but has always been treated as an intelligent person. She is simply feeble-minded. That may be somewhat embellished for the sake of the novel. That is what the son is like. Now we have an older son. It is very difficult.
The older boy is weaker, but similarly constituted. Why does the boy lie? He lies because his low intensity [of willpower when making a judgment] makes it impossible for him to develop a sense [of truth]. He doesn't care whether he says something is white or black, [whether he says no or yes. Intact insight has nothing to do with it]. You have to distinguish between the intactness of insight, [which can be completely there], and that intense catching power that catches the judgment. The mentally disabled person lacks this intense catching power to catch the judgment. [He does not get around to grasping it, the judgment. This has nothing to do with logic, but is] a psychological thing.
A question is asked.
RUDOLF STEINER: You have to tell the class that because he did this, he can no longer be in the [class]. There is no need to scold him morally. Point out that this is how it is in human society, that one must respect property, that this is a necessary institution in earthly life. As much as one likes him, it is impossible for him to remain in school in the normal way.
S. P. is slightly mentally disabled.
I must make a new start. At the beginning of September, I will hold two courses in Dornach, [on] pastoral medicine [and] theology. [I will then hold a seminar course here in September on these subjects.]
ERNST LEHRS says that it is difficult to establish contact with the students in such a short time and asks Rudolf Steiner for help.
RUDOLF STEINER: I will try. Just don't misunderstand that the question is [preferably] a matter of interest in children and young people, [and a matter of enthusiasm]. It is not for nothing that I emphasize at every opportunity that we cannot make progress in any field without enthusiasm, without inner flexibility. Really, when I — I mean, [it's] bad, but I don't see this enthusiasm; I can't find that any effort is being made to really conjure it up. You see, if I could carry out everything that comes to mind, I would, for example, try to see how many chairs have glue on them after a teachers' conference is over. It seems to me that you are stuck to your seats, you are tired. [A person] cannot be tired if they are to live in the spirit. Being tired is a matter of disinterest. These things must be expressed in this way.
Gaining psychological insights into the students [this also includes pedagogical-technical tricks, which we will discuss].
But above all, what is needed is enthusiasm and interest. [Enthusiasm cannot be taught.] I have the impression that for some of us, teaching has become a little boring. The basic interest is not there. We need enthusiasm. We don't need genteel superiority and sophistry. We must apply the method to ourselves so that we are not tired. Even in the classes, our friends are tired when they have to teach. That's not acceptable. It's just like seeing a eurythmist sitting down during rehearsals. It's a terrible image. It's tasteless.
The classical language curriculum. S. P.'s sister should read the educational lectures.
KARL STOCKMEYER: Who is actually to be regarded as an “old member”?
RUDOLF STEINER: Some people can be considered old members if they have been in the society for three days.
Mr. Sommer can be trusted.